The Berlin Wall

As we were sitting in class last week, our topic of discussion turned to the Berlin Wall. I just couldn't seem to turn away from what a symbol the Berlin Wall was. Not only was it an actual wall, whether you want to call it a wall representing Soviet oppression or a wall to repell capitalist enemies, it was a very powerful psychological symbol as well. Up till this point in time, the Soviets, by this I mean the party members in Moscow, had tried to at least maintain a semblance of a democratic process but the Wall changed that. It was a physical symbol to the people of not only East Berlin and East Germany but all of the people behind the "Iron Curtain". The Soviets could no longer deny their use of force to quell any and all uprisings. Both the Berlin Wall and the Inner German Border were considered to be defenses against the Fascists and capitalists but all the guns pointed inwards.
I view the building of the wall as one of the pivotal points where the Soviets shed their false "democratic" dealings and let the world view their true identity. It was with this that Moscow would have lost all support from socialists and communists all over the world but disapproved of oppression and the use of violence against the subjects under the communists governments.
It just seems to me that their were pivotal moments in the Cold War that effected the way that the two superpowers would react. With the building of the Berlin Wall, and subsequently the Inner German Border, it seemed as if the USSR was drawing the proverbial line in the sand and setting up the future battle line for Europe that seemed to once again to involve the German people in a war. Germany, both East and West Germany, was where the attention of the world would gaze. And for the most part, the Nazis and their atrocities would almost be forgotten in preparation to for the future war. It seems that, especially in the West, that the atrocities was best forgotten, if not forgiven, in order to move on and provide a buffer between the rest of Western Europe just as the USSR would do with Eastern Europe.

Hitler's Executioners

I have to say that the articles we read over the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 got me thinking. Both Browning and Goldhagen provide varying theories over just who was responsible for the mass murders that occurred during the Third Reich. I do not know just with which side I would side. Browning makes a compelling argument with his empathetic approach. He writes that the men themselves, the ordinary men of Germany, though ordered to kill, were not happy with the orders themselves. The commanding officer, Trapp, is one example Browning seems to favor. He points out that Trapp offered the men a chance to be reassigned to other duties and protected the first one who took the offered. Browning also offers evidence pointing to the internal conflict that Trapp seemed to find himself in.
Goldhagen, meanwhile, seems to want to "hang" the men of Police Battalion 101. Though he does provide some evidence supporting Trapp's conflict over his orders, he goes further with Trapp. He writes that Trapp provided an excuse that the Jews were "partisans" and what they were doing was helping the war effort. Goldhagen argues that this excuse was transparent and proves Trapps guilt. Lt. Buchman, the only officer who flat out stated that he wouldn't have any part in this atrocity, is the source of a theory of Goldhagen's. He believes that the reason Buchman would not take part was, quite simply, that he knew Jews from his professional life.
I have to say that though Goldhagen does provide more info, he seems to be more on a witch hunt than anything else. Browning, on the other hand, seems to want to provide a more complete view of the atrocity. He provides the facts and theories on why the men did what they did and lets the reader decide for himself just what went on and why?
It does bring me one last thought. I just wanted to comment on the seeming circle that the history of the Holocaust seems to be going on. At first it was viewed that the people of Germany, all of them, were perpetrators of the Holocaust. Later, it was put forth that it was the Nazi Party and the SS that carried out the killings. Now it seems that with the opening up of more sources the first theory is brought back to the forefront.

German use of Thuggery

It seems that you cannot talk about German politics without encountering a private army of thugs. On one hand you have th Freikorps of the Weimar Republic. The Freikorps was made up mostly of military men who had been discharged but felt out of place in civilian life. They joined in order to be with people who understood them. For the most part, they were used as a paramilitary force to combat the rising communists. The SPD used them to put down the German Revolution, the Marxist Spartacist League, and the Bavarian Soviet Republic. With the rise of the German Workers Party, later renamed the National Socialist Workers Party, many former Freikorps joined and later became members of the Nazi party.
The Nazi party employed their own brand of thugs. The Sturmabteilung, the SA or Storm Troopers, were used in Hitler's rise to power. Though after the "Night of the Long Knives", they were superceded by the SS. Called "Brownshirts", the SA was used as the right arm of the party. Their specialty was intimidation. However, the SA's ambitions drew the ire of the regular army when they planned to replace them with the a strengthened SA. Hitler, in order to gain support of the regular army, made a plan to dispose of the SA. The SS arrested and executed all the leadership of the SA in one night. It was known as the "Night of the Long Knives".
Anyway, it is just interesting to see the use of thugs by both the SPD in the Weimar Republic and Hitler during the Third Reich. Most people like to point out the differences between the "Democratic" Weimar Republic and the "dictatorship" of the Third Reich. It just goes to show you that politics seems to go hand and hand whether you are the "good guys" or the "bad guys".

The Sailor's Revolt

I have to say that the thing that most caught my attention was the part played by the sailors' revolt. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand their plight. It was towards the end of the war and Germany had lost. Everyone knew that, except it seems the military leaders. The admirality had this, I would call it insane, notion that one big victory would turn the tide in the favor of Germany. They have the bright idea to send out their navy to battle the Royal Navy in the English channel. First off, it is suicide to think that the German navy could hold its own against the much better British Navy in their home territory. The revolt started in Wilhelmshaven. The German Fleet had anchored here awaiting its final orders for the coming battle. During October 29-30 the crews of three ships of the Third Navy refused to follow orders. They simply refused to lift anchor. Also, the crews of two battleships of the First Navy Squadron engaged in mutiny and sabotage of the ships systems. It was only when torpedo boats threatened to open fire did the crews step down and allowed themselves to be lead away without armed resistance. However, the sailors were somewhat successful. The Admiralty dropped plans of attack on account that the sailors actions were a hint that they could not be relied upon. From there it was straight down hill. The sailors met with representatives from the USPD and SPD. They formed a large mob and freed the arrested mutineers by force. From there, they went from town to town. It would seem that the sailors and their revolt played a major part in the general revolt by the German people in protest of the war and lead to the Weimar Republic and the abdication of the Kaiser.

Tirpitz - Just wanted a Navy

Tirpitz was an interesting military man. It seems that all he wanted was a navy and to be the Admiral of said navy. One could say that he saw the need for a navy but didn't want to ever use the navy. Now don't get me wrong. I see his reasoning for wanting a navy for Germany. First off, Germany was an expanding imperial power. They had obtained colonies around the world. A navy would have been a necessary thing needed to provide security for trading and supply lanes to those colonies. He also saw the power a strong navy could provide as a deterent to other great powers. As an Admiral, he was also a rather restrained military man. His plan only called for three new warships a year. At the rate a power like Britain built ships, this plan made perfect sense. A decent number of ships would be able to provide security at all times deemed necessary without undue stress on logistics. When one ship went in for repairs or overhauls, another would be available to take its place. Also, after five or so years, older ships would be considered obsolete and the new ships would be new designs meant to replace those obsolete ships. This plan is completely valid from a logistical and pragmatic standpoint. But as it turned out, Tirpitz caved in to the demands from the Naval league and upped the number of warships turned out per year from three to four. Another reason Tirpitz is considered unusual as a commander is his seeming lack of confidence in his beloved navy to fight. However, the point was made that he may have just been the most realistic one. He knew that Germany would never be able to match Britain on the sea. He was always pushing for more time to build up the navy, but in the end, I think that it wouldn't have mattered. For if you have five years to strengthen you navy, so does your enemy. It would have been better to attack when least expected and where least expected.

Wilhem's Folly

After reading this week about King Wilhelm II, I have to say that I was stunned at his folly. The folly that I speak of is, of course, the removal of Otto von Bismarck as chancellor. Bismarck had always taken the cautious approach in his foreign policies. Wilhelm II, however, chose a more antagonistic approach. Both men were trying to protect Germany's "place in the sun". I had to know more about just why Wilhelm and Bismarck came to be so opposed to one another. It seems that Bismarck thought that he would be able to dominate the new king. He vehemently opposed Wilhelm's policies. In any case, Bismarck is replaced, and his carefully laid plans to protect Germany's borders peacefully failed as the result of World War 1 would painfully point out. But what really is surprising is just how prophetic Bismarck turned out to be. Bismarck said," Jena came twenty years after the death of Frederick the Great; the crash will come twenty years after my departure if things go on like this." This prophecy came about just as he said it would. He is also to have said, "One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." His prediction was made true when Prince Ferdinand was assassinated by Gavrilo Princip of the Serbian Black Hand. Bismarck proved to be a very insightful man when it came to just what Germany could handle and what would be the best interest of Germany. My question is: What was Wilhelm thinking when he fired Bismarck? I know that he may have disapproved of Bismarck's political leanings and games, but Bismarck did nothing that put Germany in danger, as a country, while he was responsible also for the expansion of Germany's borders and the weakening of France. Wilhelm, on the other hand, expanded Germany into Africa, put his foot into European politics at the peril of war, and will put Germany into a war that it would lose. It is Wilhelm's folly that I believe will give birth to the infamous Third Reich.

The Importance of the Second Reich

It seems to me that people seem to be trying connect the Second Reich with the infamous Third Reich. The question to me is why? Of course if would seem logical to try to find a connection between the two most influential periods of Germany's history. The Second Reich, under Bismarck's political guidance, achieved a unified Germany with established borders and a military able to withstand any power on the continent. The Third Reich was also made territorial gains and established a powerful and effective army. I believe, however, that the Second Reich is not the place to look for the "birth" of the Hitler's Germany. The evidence points out the fact that while Bismarck and Hitler were both charismatic and politically savvy leaders they were as different in their aims as two men could be. Bismarck played his political games with the European powers and fought wars to expand and establish Germany's borders but went no further. Hitler fought and would have taken over the whole world if he had had all the right advantages. He would not be satisfied with the Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia. The end of World War 1, the resulting Versailles treaty, and the failure of the Weimar Republic is the real birth of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich.